@see
http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/browse_thread/thread/716acaa66ceba244

Seems to me that adding a FOLLOW_REDIRECTS option to makeRequest's params
would make sense, assuming all security concerns are resolved.

--j

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Randy Hudson <huds...@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> It would be great if developing/migrating a Web UI for use as a Gadget
> imposed the smallest possible "penalty".  For the most part, makeRequest
> is the alternative to what would have been done via XmlHttpRequest in the
> original, "standalone" version of the same web app.  To me, this suggests
> that gadgets.io.makeRequest should emulate the behavior of XmlHttpRequest
> as much as possible, including following redirects (to locations at the
> same host).
>
> Developers migrating existing apps to run as a gadget may choose to
> wrapper XmlHttpRequest (or existing equivalent, e.g. dojo.xhr) instead of
> changing all of their code that makes such calls.  This approach also
> makes it possible to reuse code in both remote (i.e. in a gadget
> container) and local contexts.
>
> If makeRequest doesn't follow redirects, even developers starting from
> scratch would be encouraged to wrapper makeRequest with their own utility.
>  I wouldn't want to write javascript to follow redirects while detecting
> redirect cycles every time I do XHR.
>
> -Randy Hudson
>
>
>
> From:
> John Hjelmstad <johnfa...@gmail.com>
> To:
> johnfa...@gmail.com, shindig.remai...@gmail.com, bea...@google.com,
> jon.weyga...@gmail.com
> Date:
> 11/11/2009 04:33 PM
> Subject:
> Re: 3xx shouldn't be classified as errors in gadgets.io.makeRequest
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:54 PM, <jon.weyga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is it clear from the OS specification that redirects should (or should
> > not be) followed?
> >
>
> Not too sure...
>
>
> >
> > Would this be something that we would want to add, along with perhaps a
> > parameter to turn it on/off?
>
>
> ...but I'd be in favor of this.
>
>
> >
> >
> > http://codereview.appspot.com/152070
> >
>
>

Reply via email to